I devoted the day to coming up with a defintion of "thinking" that would
make sense of the taxonomy that I use at our lab. We have working
groups to foster thinking - sensitively and concretely, powerfully and
simply, energetically and relevantly.

I will write here a bit about this taxonomy, and how it came about, and
then explain my solution in my next letter. Andrius, ms@ms.lt

About four years ago I made a list of the many kinds of examples we
might accumulate to understand thinking.
http://www.ms.lt/ms/results.html
I came up with twelve different projects, which I organized as the
"kinds, features and uses" of the
"reasons, tools, structures and formats"
for thinking.

Then I made a list of various kinds of endeavors that we might pursue at
our laboratory. There were two different kinds. Some fostered
"caring", and we should pursue them through "material loss". Others
fostered thinking, and we could best pursue them through "material gain".

There appeared to be four kinds of endeavors to foster caring - about
God and others, and relationships with God and others.
How might I relate them. Possibly...

reasons are Why we think? caring about God rekindles Why we care?

tools are How we think? caring about others rekindles How we care?

structures are What we think? caring about our relationships with others rekindles What we care?

formats are Whether we think? caring about our relationships with God rekindles Whether we care?

I will have to consider this, though.

Anyways, I looked at various endeavors that fostered thinking, such as
"interconnecting software tools for organizing thoughts", and they each
seemed to draw on two different levels. For example, tools and formats.
So I reasoned that they were given by the pairs of levels, and that
the purpose was to elevate our thinking. That is why originally our
working groups had names like "whetherwhat" and so on.

Then I found another way to look at these six kinds of endeavors. They
seemed to each have their own object of thought that they focused on.

think sensitively with regard to our own actions

think concretely with regard to other actions

think powerfully with regard to our own thoughts

think simply with regard to other thoughts

think energetically with regard to our own stands

think relevantly with regard to other stands

In summary: think as you would for yourself, and as you would for
others. This made sense, so I changed the names of our groups to
"ourownthoughts", etc. And then I changed them again to
"thinkingpowerfully", etc., just so it would be more self-evident.

I have been making progress in the big picture of how the many
structures all fit together. And it has this basic construction of ten
equals four plus six pairs from the four. So I thought I should ask
myself, what is thinking, anyways? And get a definition from which I
could generate these six different kinds.

I started with some observations. They were originally in Lithuanian,
and it is funny how they are not so straightforward to translate into
English. Because in English it is hard to talk about "the one who is
thought about".

Thinking lets us separate the the worlds of the thinker and the thought.
That is, the one who thinks, and that which is thought about.

So that which is thought about is circumscribed, encapsulated. So we
have a "thought". As thinkers, we can hold this bound, we can change
the circumstances that we dictate within. We can step in or step out,
engross ourselves or pull back. We can let loose an idea, let it
unfold, evolve, with increasing slack, and release its spirit.
Alternatively, we can concentrate, keep a thought within bounds, with
decreasing slack, and give it form.

Here I thought of our member David Kankiewicz's most original outlook, a
key part of which I think is the centrality of generating thoughts that
are ever new.

So there is this tension between defining a scope, and letting a thought
unfold beyond it. The thoughts bring each other forward through
associations. We can hold on to a thought, we can look for new
connections, and we can let it jump outside everything.

I feel that central to thinking is this channeling, this allowing of
thoughts to spread in a given direction. Our thoughts appear to have a
natural desire to spread in scope: from whether to what to how to why.

As thinkers, we choose which levels to contain our thoughts, so that
they do not make associations, and at which levels to allow for the
natural spreading, which happens on its own terms.

we accept How and Why as given
let scope drift from Whether to What
then we think sensitively

we accept Whether and What as given
let scope drift from How to Why
then we think concretely

we accept What and Why as given
let scope drift from Whether to How
then we think powerfully

we accept Whether and How as given
let scope drift from What to Why
then we think simply

we accept Whether and Why as given
let scope drift from What to How
then we think energetically

we accept What and How as given
let scope drift from Whether to Why
then we think relevantly

This may seem abstract, but it is quite vivid to me, so that is very
good. The model nicely captures both the discipline and the patience
involved in thinking. And that there can be multiple streams of
thinking occuring in parallel, at their own pace, as we mull them. I
hope it might tap into David's intuitions. It shows how, behind the
scenes, we guide our thinking, sort of like milking our minds. It also
plays off this enormous force that wells up through our thinking, has us
keep looking broader, distinguishes and orders the levels of reflection.
It lets us interpret these as expressions of the will! (which they
should be). It shows the very partial control that we have of our thinking.

Additionally, thinking is structurally identified with the change of
state from being to doing. (And being, doing, thinking interdefine each
other as a representation of the division of everything into three
perspectives.) So the drift can be interpreted in this regard - that
with regard to thinking, being drifts into doing, and that is how we can
tell the former and the latter scope.

I can relate the kinds of thinking to the expressions of the will (the
representations of anything). And also, I think, to the six issues, the
six doubts. But let me just list out the connection with the
expressions of the will:

when I engage - I think sensitively

when in suspense - I think powerfully

when I believe - I think energetically

when I rely - I think concretely

when I love - I think simply

when I suffer - I think relevantly

I think that is a good fit.
Also, there are connections here to think about with the data from the
"good will exercises", and how pairs of levels come up there in the
relationship between the doubts and counterquestions.

Now there is a lot that I can pursue from here.

I want to define "caring about thinking". I should think more, what is
caring? Also, I should look at internalization. And "caring about
thinking" seems to raise the question, what is good thinking, what is
bad thinking? It seems related to open thinking and closed thinking,
good will and bad will, the way that good will keeps us open to the good
heart, makes way for it, and bad will denies it.

Also, I would like to consider the connection between the different
kinds of thinking and the structural families. There should be very
clear direction here how the clarification of the structural families
might advance the application of the associated kinds of thinking. That
would be quite practical. I should also do this for the kinds of caring.